High court will review climate change lawsuit
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a new case about climate change, the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from electric utilities that are trying to short-circuit an effort by states to force cuts in power plant emissions.
The court agreed Monday to consider ending a federal lawsuit by eight states, New York City and others that accuse the power companies of being among the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the world. The suit asks a federal judge to order reductions in the emissions in plants in 20 states.
A federal judge initially threw out the case, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said it could continue.
The lawsuit says carbon dioxide is one of the chief causes of global warming. The greenhouse gas is produced when coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels burn.
Similar lawsuits are pending in California and North Carolina.
The American Electric Power Co. and the other utilities do not want courts getting involved in the issue. The companies argue that only the Environmental Protection Agency can set emissions standards.
The other utilities are Cinergy Co., Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia, Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota, and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority.
The Obama administration, representing the TVA, urged a middle course that would have avoided a full-blown hearing at the high court.
The administration angered environmental groups with its position that the states should not be allowed to proceed in federal court because, among other reasons, the EPA already has begun to take actions to compel cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.
EPA regulation is a more efficient process than a federal lawsuit, the administration said.
In 2007, the court split 5-4 in its first global warming case in a ruling that declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The court said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environment law. The same reasoning applies to power plants.
The case will be argued in the spring.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was on the 2nd Circuit panel that heard the case, is not taking part in the Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue.
The states in the lawsuit are: California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The Open Space Institute, the Open Space Conservancy and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire also are plaintiffs.
The case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 10-174.
High court turns down federal death row inmate
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned away an appeal from a federal death row prisoner who wants the courts to consider evidence that one federal judge said “is virtually guaranteed” to show the inmate is mentally retarded and thus barred from being executed.
The court did not comment Monday in rejecting an appeal from Bruce Carneil Webster. He was sentenced to death more than 14 years ago and has since tried in vain to persuade federal judges that he is mentally retarded.
Evidence recently provided by the Social Security Administration shows three federal doctors determined Webster was mentally retarded when he applied for disability benefits in 1993, a year before 16-year-old Lisa Rene was kidnapped and killed.
Rene was raped, beaten and buried alive after her abduction was recorded in a desperate 911 call.
Webster is not contesting his conviction, just his death sentence.
But under a 1996 law, a federal court can only consider new evidence this late in the appeals process when it would provide evidence of a defendant’s innocence.
The case is Webster v. U.S., 10-150.
Court deals with veterans time limit on benefits
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is wrestling with whether to enforce an appeals deadline on benefits for military veterans who may be physically or mentally challenged.
The high court on Monday heard an appeal from the wife of David Henderson.
Henderson was discharged in 1952 after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He asked the Veterans Affair Department for home care in 2001 and was denied.
He missed a 120-day deadline for appeal by 15 days, blaming it on his illness.
A veterans court and federal appeals court refused to let him appeal.
His lawyer says not allowing the appeals treats veterans worse than any other litigants in the court system. But the government says Congress did not put any exceptions on the time limit.
